| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
14 Feb 2007 03:53:45 PM |
| Object: |
A simple question, really |
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn’t the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than the
Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are based.
They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and the Third
Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to ‘finish what Hitler
started.’
The world watched as Mein Kampf became a reality. Had a concerted
European effort been made to kill Hitler and the leading members of the
Nazi party, 50 million lives would have been spared.
The question remains: With the benefit of hindsight, would the left
fight Nazi ideolgies? Or do the policies of the German National
Socialist Party trump their evil?
What will the left fight for?
In much of the Muslim world, Iran included, Mein Kampf and Holocaust
denial serve as the foundation for the most heinous and ugly of
ideologies. It is always interesting to note that those who insist the
Holocaust is a lie, are the same people that believe it was a good idea
to begin with.
We wrote,
If there were more hate and less love, there would not be the rapes
and slaughter in Darfur.
If there were more hate and less love, there would be no real
insurgency in Iraq.
If there were more hate and less love, there would be a functioning,
peaceful Palestinian state.
Instead, we have none of those things, and in it’s place, we have
more death, destruction and heartbreak.
We don’t hate the rapes and slaughter in Darfur enough, and we don’t
hate the terrorists who claim they are fighting the ‘occupation’ in Iraq
by slaughtering their own (explain that, please). We don’t hate the
culture of violence and adoration of butchery in much of the Middle East
enough, and as a result, we see the joy and celebration when innocents
are killed and whole armies of apologists are quick to blame others for
the barbaric and animal-like behavior so evident for us to see…
The fact is, we need more hatred of evil. We need to be outraged at
Darfur and the other places like it. We must be so outraged that we must
be ready to inflict a pain so great and a punishment so profound, that
the evil doers will take note and cease their brutality. There is
nothing to discuss about Darfur. There is nothing to discuss about
terrorism perpetrated against civilians. If that is a hard concept to
accept, close your eyes and imagine it was your wife or daughter in
Darfur. Imagine it was your son or husband riding a bus or eating lunch
in a restaurant that was to be blown up. There is nothing to discuss
about the case for the insurgency in Iraq. That argument was lost when
the insurgents started blowing civilians and other innocents, on the
streets or at prayer.
The evil doers must tremble in fear from the thought of our hate for
them, and at the thought of retribution…
The silence and ugliness on much of the left is thunderous and
revolting, indeed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
14 Feb 2007 05:08:50 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than the
Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are based.
They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and the Third
Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to 'finish what Hitler
started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a "surge" to
invade all those countries.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
14 Feb 2007 05:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth
defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are
based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and
the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to 'finish
what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a "surge"
to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 02:01:52 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth
defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are
based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and
the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to 'finish
what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a "surge"
to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 08:07:43 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough.
We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda,
Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few
places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They
has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered
by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions
are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler
and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to
'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 11:21:32 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D85D0CE4E98freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough.
We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda,
Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few
places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They
has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered
by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions
are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler
and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to
'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
No, not that one. The one that doesn't arbitrarily invade soverign foreign
nations.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 12:28:59 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:s8CdnQFId7IHC0nYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D85D0CE4E98freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical
and appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy
enough. We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in
Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name
a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either.
They has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were
butchered by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different
than the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated
intentions are based. They make no secret of their admiration of
Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of
their desire to 'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to
defend anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
No, not that one. The one that doesn't arbitrarily invade soverign
foreign nations.
Just as I thought. You really do hate America. Your "love" is for some
idealized fantasy that never existed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 02:00:21 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D8895AC48DDfreddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:s8CdnQFId7IHC0nYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D85D0CE4E98freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical
and appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy
enough. We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in
Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name
a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either.
They has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were
butchered by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different
than the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated
intentions are based. They make no secret of their admiration of
Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of
their desire to 'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to
defend anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
No, not that one. The one that doesn't arbitrarily invade soverign
foreign nations.
Just as I thought. You really do hate America. Your "love" is for some
idealized fantasy that never existed.
Yes. I freely admit that my love is for the ideals of the United States of
America. It was supposed to be a beacon of ideals like freedom and justice
enshrined in the words of The Constitution of the United States.
I know you shun ideals, and see no need to pursue them. That kind of
thinking is why we're in the state we're in.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 04:06:55 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:vtadnfYG4O5KJknYnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D8895AC48DDfreddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:s8CdnQFId7IHC0nYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D85D0CE4E98freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical
and appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these
questions become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy
enough. We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in
Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to
name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or
minorities in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth
defending, either. They has stood by for decades as millions
upon millions were butchered by one dysfunctional tyrant after
another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different
than the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated
intentions are based. They make no secret of their admiration
of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret
of their desire to 'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to
defend anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that
fights against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
No, not that one. The one that doesn't arbitrarily invade soverign
foreign nations.
Just as I thought. You really do hate America. Your "love" is for
some idealized fantasy that never existed.
Yes. I freely admit that my love is for the ideals of the United
States of America. It was supposed to be a beacon of ideals like
freedom and justice enshrined in the words of The Constitution of the
United States.
I know you shun ideals, and see no need to pursue them. That kind of
thinking is why we're in the state we're in.
You see no need to consider reality and no need whatsoever to have any
vestiges of respect for your fellow citizens unless they live up to your
impossible ideals. Even *you* don't live up to those ideals, Denis,
which leads me to ask: just how much do you hate yourself?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 10:39:23 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D8AE4E99220freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:vtadnfYG4O5KJknYnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D8895AC48DDfreddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:s8CdnQFId7IHC0nYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D85D0CE4E98freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical
and appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these
questions become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy
enough. We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in
Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to
name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or
minorities in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth
defending, either. They has stood by for decades as millions
upon millions were butchered by one dysfunctional tyrant after
another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different
than the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated
intentions are based. They make no secret of their admiration
of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret
of their desire to 'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to
defend anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that
fights against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
No, not that one. The one that doesn't arbitrarily invade soverign
foreign nations.
Just as I thought. You really do hate America. Your "love" is for
some idealized fantasy that never existed.
Yes. I freely admit that my love is for the ideals of the United
States of America. It was supposed to be a beacon of ideals like
freedom and justice enshrined in the words of The Constitution of the
United States.
I know you shun ideals, and see no need to pursue them. That kind of
thinking is why we're in the state we're in.
You see no need to consider reality and no need whatsoever to have any
vestiges of respect for your fellow citizens unless they live up to your
impossible ideals.
No, only when they actively seek to destroy them, like you.
Even *you* don't live up to those ideals,
But at least I try. You, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy our
freedoms.
Denis,
which leads me to ask: just how much do you hate yourself?
A lot less than you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 10:23:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:07:43 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough.
We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda,
Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few
places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They
has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered
by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions
are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler
and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to
'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
We've taken on the Saudi Royal Family? When did that happen?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 08:50:04 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:07:43 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough.
We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda,
Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few
places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They
has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered
by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions
are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler
and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to
'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
You don't live in that country Fred. We allow leaders to support
tyrants and we let those who attack us with terrorism go.
And we let you live, you who support and encourage all that.
Face it Fred. You are presenting a flawed hypothesis. You pretend
all your lies about this country are true and then want to make up
fake questions about them. You have to face reality if you want to
have a real conversation and I've yet to see that you have the balls
to do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 12:27:39 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in news:45e871ab.405394625@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:07:43 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RoydnfmVOfbvjknYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical
and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions
become relevant.
[http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy
enough.
We know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda,
Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few
places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities
in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either.
They
has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered
by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different
than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions
are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph
Hitler
and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to
'finish what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a
"surge" to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to
defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Which country is that, Denis? The one I live in? The one that fights
against tyrants and supporters of terrorism?
You don't live in that country Fred. We allow leaders to support
tyrants and we let those who attack us with terrorism go.
And we let you live, you who support and encourage all that.
You *let* me live? Out comes the leftist fascism right on schedule.
Face it Fred. You are presenting a flawed hypothesis. You pretend
all your lies about this country are true and then want to make up
fake questions about them. You have to face reality if you want to
have a real conversation and I've yet to see that you have the balls
to do that.
I see. You don't live in America, Kate, you live in some idealized
fantasy world of your own.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
15 Feb 2007 02:06:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:01:52 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7C136077E8freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:R5CdnUgRaMceC07YnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26...
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth
defending?
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than
the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are
based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and
the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to 'finish
what Hitler started.'
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a "surge"
to invade all those countries.
A perfect answer, Denis. I take it that you wouldn't fight to defend
anything?
I'd fight to defend my country.
Against rightwing fascists who want to destroy the US Constitution.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3130 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
14 Feb 2007 10:15:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:08:50 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Wow, that's quite a list. I suspect Bush will need more than a "surge" to
invade all those countries.
I'm sure all his Christian buddies will be more than glad to stand up
and be kil^H^H^Hcounted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 12:53:31 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
I am a Reagan Republican like Bill Odom. See below.
I don't accept the premise of your question, that what the current
administration is doing is defending US, that war without end is the
answer.
See: http://tinylink.com/?Wpo1rP1Qme
Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the
gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the
war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal
democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has
no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE,
the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a
declaration of defeat.
Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in
rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence
community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened
to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans
out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members
are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.
Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or
failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own
responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So
they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding
resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of
U.S. troops in Iraq.
For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the
president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has
paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage
of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is
not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of
"who gets the blame" could begin to alter American strategy in ways that
will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.
No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We
face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects
will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at
least, public acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on
illusions, not realities. There never has been any right way to invade
and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two
truths ought to put the matter beyond question:
First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal,
constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by
professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies
created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly
"constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a
broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a
generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures.
None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.
Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know
these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March
2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who
dared to mention the many findings of academic research on how
democracies evolve. They also ignored our own struggles over two
centuries to create the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis
are now expected to create a constitutional order in a country with no
conditions favoring it.
This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal democrats. When they
immigrate to the United States, many do so quickly. But it is to say
that Arab countries, as well as a large majority of all countries, find
creating a stable constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.
Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to
be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense.
It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility
toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored
supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation,
polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States.
Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is
acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides
in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because
its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded
Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.
As Congress awakens to these realities -- and a few members have bravely
pointed them out -- will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many
lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the
president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.
1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will
occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of
this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made
inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created,
which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely
proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express
fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist
haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is
already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already
exists.
2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in
Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war
aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian
influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy,
predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by
Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many
members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now
supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and
predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction
helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for
expanding the war to Iran.
Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the
war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences
would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not
trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger,
and have more lasting consequences.
3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The
longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has
become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial.
After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in
helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such
foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of
civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not
push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is
the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.
4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This
argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers
proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to
justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion,
insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has
anybody asked the troops?
During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the
course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third
and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that
in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq.
Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them
home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to
reporters on the ground.
But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the
implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to
continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility
belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S.
Truman make it clear that "the buck stops" in the Oval Office? If the
president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress?
Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its
power of the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that
might actually bear fruit.
The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now
simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting
out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options.
Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the
region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant
to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.
Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize
the Middle East.
Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually
destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to
prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the
hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine
the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.
Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not
primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so
they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war
as a "tactical draw" and make "regional stability" our measure of
"victory." That single step would dramatically realign the opposing
forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the
angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States
want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than
they now have.
Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will
hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important
allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of
Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are
increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most
leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-led diplomacy to
stabilize their neighborhood.
If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical legacy, he
would seize the initiative to implement this kind of strategy. He would
eventually be held up as a leader capable of reversing direction by
turning an imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery.
If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress the
opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It is already too
late to wait for some presidential candidate for 2008 to retrieve the
situation. If Congress cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy.
diane@hudson.org
William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army
intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald
Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy
Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at
Yale and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 08:20:04 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 08:48:39 AM |
|
|
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
Ted
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the war
in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I don't
think that those few represented anything like the prevailing view
amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war began. At
the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90% approval
for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent without it
being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 01:00:24 PM |
|
|
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lodited-5E8DB9.06483917022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the
war in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I
don't think that those few represented anything like the prevailing
view amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war
began. At the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90%
approval for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent
without it being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
I remember how Afghanistan was declared a "quagmire" after all of three
weeks. You don't get that sort of instant defeatism without a
fundamental lack of support for aggressive defense.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If
the usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the
other on your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're
coming for you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 06:28:00 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns98DA8EBA7C2ABfreddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lodited-5E8DB9.06483917022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the
war in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I
don't think that those few represented anything like the prevailing
view amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war
began. At the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90%
approval for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent
without it being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
I remember how Afghanistan was declared a "quagmire" after all of three
weeks. You don't get that sort of instant defeatism without a
fundamental lack of support for aggressive defense.
Tish, tish. You ask a simple question, demanding a simple response and
when you get one you go and complicate it with notions like "instant
defeatism." I'm glad to see you are implicitly acknowledging the issue
isn't as simple as you seem to like to pretend it is. If you'd like an
honest, sophisticated analysis of how liberals, as a non-monolithic
group of thinkers, felt about "defense" at the time of 9/11 you would be
hard pressed to find one better than this:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/shatz
I offer this, of course, with full expectation that you aren't actually
open to acknowledging that liberals are not a monolithic group of
thinkers and therefore there cannot be a sufficient simple answer to
your simplistic question.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 02:06:58 PM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 2:00 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Ted King <lodi...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:lodited-5E8DB9.06483917022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddyb...@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the
war in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I
don't think that those few represented anything like the prevailing
view amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war
began. At the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90%
approval for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent
without it being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
I remember how Afghanistan was declared a "quagmire" after all of three
weeks. You don't get that sort of instant defeatism without a
fundamental lack of support for aggressive defense.
Declared a quagmire by whom, Fred? The voices in your head, perhaps?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 03:11:42 PM |
|
|
On 17 Feb 2007 12:06:58 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1171742818.423270.95720@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
On Feb 17, 2:00 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Ted King <lodi...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:lodited-5E8DB9.06483917022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddyb...@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the
war in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I
don't think that those few represented anything like the prevailing
view amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war
began. At the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90%
approval for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent
without it being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
I remember how Afghanistan was declared a "quagmire" after all of three
weeks. You don't get that sort of instant defeatism without a
fundamental lack of support for aggressive defense.
Declared a quagmire by whom, Fred? The voices in your head, perhaps?
The Ottomans?
The British in the 19th Century?
The Soviets in the 20th?
Now, a good leader would have noticed this problem and not taken his eye
off the prize before he had accomplished his goal. Bush, of course, is a
totally incompetent leader, so we are still fighting in Afghanistan
because Bush was too stupid, stubborn or lazy to learn enough to do the
job right.
Thanks to George W Bush, Afghanistan is the largest exporter of heroin
in the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
17 Feb 2007 09:26:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:11:42 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
<snip>
Thanks to George W Bush, Afghanistan is the largest exporter of heroin
in the world.
So you admit, then, that Chimpy has returned the Afghani economy to
its former splendor?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
20 Feb 2007 09:08:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:24 +0100 (CET), in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns98DA8EBA7C2ABfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lodited-5E8DB9.06483917022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <lodited-1D15F9.06200317022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns98D7AC0EC1971freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-
simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios,
Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is
worth defending?
How many progressive or liberal commentators can you name that were
against the war in Afghanistan? I don't know of any.
I did a little research and found that Michael Moore was against the
war in Afghanistan. I imagine there were some others like him, but I
don't think that those few represented anything like the prevailing
view amongst progressives and liberals at the time the Afghan war
began. At the beginning of the Afghan war there was something like 90%
approval for it - there is no way to get to that high of a percent
without it being the case that most "leftists" were also in support.
I remember how Afghanistan was declared a "quagmire" after all of three
weeks.
I don't. It could have been a reasonable victory. Now Afghanistan is
back to a repressive warlord run narco-state. And it will be that way
when we leave.
You don't get that sort of instant defeatism without a
fundamental lack of support for aggressive defense.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: A diffictult question, really |
15 Feb 2007 12:58:11 AM |
|
|
On 15 feb, 04:53, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
Apart from the fact that I do not really know these people
it is generally hard to tell what leftist believe.
They tend to be very different.
Some are Atheists, some are theists.
Some are communists some are not
Some are socialist some are not
some are liberals some are not
some are nationalists some are not
What they tend to have in common,
is that they want to help the feeble against the strong.
the poor against the rich,
the discirminated against the discriminating.
After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and
appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become
relevant. [http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2516.php]
The only appopriate response to beasts would be "bark, bark bark",
if however you do that to human beings, it isvery impropriate.
We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We
know it wasn't the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo,
Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.
Does the right?
The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in
China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has
stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one
dysfunctional tyrant after another.
Does the right?
When Saddam launched a onesided attack against Iran,
the US did not even raise their tongues against it.
When Saddam was killing Kurds with poisened Gas, he was the US's
favorite.
Only when he attacked the rich Emir of Kuwayt the US objected.
(rightly, but a litte late)
The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than the
Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are based.
They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and the Third
Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to 'finish what Hitler
started.
For the people - not really a regime in Rammallah there is an excuse,
they have good reason not to like Jewish people to much.
Those in Teheran are another question. As they themselves never
suffered from the act of any Jew at all. (as far as I know)
I really doubt though they admire the downfall of the "third reich"
Or would it be they are suicidal?
The world watched as Mein Kampf became a reality. Had a concerted
European effort been made to kill Hitler and the leading members of the
Nazi party, 50 million lives would have been spared.
Even in hindsight that is not sure.
Mayve Western Europe would have been overrun by the communists,
and 100 million would have been slaughtered by Stalin.
Murder hardly ever achieves something positive.
The question remains: With the benefit of hindsight, would the left
fight Nazi ideolgies? Or do the policies of the German National
Socialist Party trump their evil?
You do not know do you?
Because they did not want let the left into the gouvernment,
the right made Hitler Reichskanzler.
After wich Hitler started to put the lefties in jail.
Those who let Hitler in were more or less the likers of you,
(except that you have learned from HIstory and they had not)
What will the left fight for?
Peace?
In much of the Muslim world, Iran included, Mein Kampf and Holocaust
denial serve as the foundation for the most heinous and ugly of
ideologies. It is always interesting to note that those who insist the
Holocaust is a lie, are the same people that believe it was a good idea
to begin with.
You might be right at that.
We wrote,
If there were more hate and less love, there would not be the rapes
and slaughter in Darfur.
Hardly. In order to help the Dafur victims you need to love them,
rather then to hate their enemies.
If there were more hate and less love, there would be no real
insurgency in Iraq.
It is the hate against Saddam, that opened the gates,
it is the hate against the USA that makes the bombs
Did you actually think about this?
If there was less hate against the USA there wouldn't be so many
problems in the world. But you do not seem to understand inclusif
reasoning.
If there were more hate and less love, there would be a functioning,
peaceful Palestinian state.
You mean they would have killed the Jews to begin with?
I am not sure, the Israelis would not have killed them.
It is the mutual hatred between the Palestinians and Israelis that has
been standing in the way of any solution up till know.
Instead, we have none of those things, and in it's place, we have
more death, destruction and heartbreak.
And more hatred.
Hatred causes death
Hatred causes destruction
I agree (one-sided) love causes heartbreak.
I do not love the Ayatolla's
but I do love Irans innocent children.
We don't hate the rapes and slaughter in Darfur enough, and we don't
hate the terrorists who claim they are fighting the 'occupation' in Iraq
by slaughtering their own (explain that, please). We don't hate the
culture of violence and adoration of butchery in much of the Middle East
enough, and as a result, we see the joy and celebration when innocents
are killed and whole armies of apologists are quick to blame others for
the barbaric and animal-like behavior so evident for us to see...
It is no use hating,
condemning and acting in force is more than enough.
If you start hating, before you know it you act "barbaric and animal-
like" yourself/
(Excuses to anyone not speaking Greek, and all decent animals)
The fact is, we need more hatred of evil. We need to be outraged at
Darfur and the other places like it. We must be so outraged that we must
be ready to inflict a pain so great and a punishment so profound, that
the evil doers will take note and cease their brutality. There is
nothing to discuss about Darfur. There is nothing to discuss about
terrorism perpetrated against civilians. If that is a hard concept to
accept, close your eyes and imagine it was your wife or daughter in
Darfur. Imagine it was your son or husband riding a bus or eating lunch
in a restaurant that was to be blown up. There is nothing to discuss
about the case for the insurgency in Iraq. That argument was lost when
the insurgents started blowing civilians and other innocents, on the
streets or at prayer.
Yes I hate evil, but what does that help?
The evil doers must tremble in fear from the thought of our hate for
them, and at the thought of retribution...
The silence and ugliness on much of the left is thunderous and
revolting, indeed.
They will just hate you right back.
And as for silence.
The noice is great enough,
but an intellegent plan to stop the evil has yet to be drawn.
And whith a brain full of hatred, it will never be.
That will only bring us stupid plans, which make us as evil as the
evil we hate.
Honestly,
Peter van Velzen
February 2007
Thung Song
Thailand
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
16 Feb 2007 04:03:24 PM |
|
|
On Feb 14, 4:53 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
When did you stop beating your wife? It's a simple question, really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
16 Feb 2007 04:52:05 PM |
|
|
"Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1171663404.651485.95860
@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 14, 4:53 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
When did you stop beating your wife? It's a simple question, really.
Once again, not one single leftie on this entire newsgroup has the balls to
give a straight answer to a simple question. Avoidance is the name of the
game. All I get is dodges and attempts to turn the question aside. Proof
positive that the question hits a little too close to the bone.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You can without fail judge the worthiness of any hysteria-du-jour. If the
usual suspects are behind it, put one hand on your wallet and the other on
your privates and lock your door and load your guns. They're coming for
you.
Cui bono? Not the people but the regulators. But it was ever thus."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple question, really |
18 Feb 2007 10:51:02 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1171663404.651485.95860
@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 14, 4:53 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/it-is-a-simple-
question-really/
It Is A Simple Question, Really
February 14th, 2007
What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias,
et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?
When did you stop beating your wife? It's a simple question, really.
Once again, not one single leftie on this entire newsgroup has the balls to
give a straight answer to a simple question. Avoidance is the name of the
game. All I get is dodges and attempts to turn the question aside. Proof
positive that the question hits a little too close to the bone.
I don't accept the premise of your question, that what the current
administration is doing is defending US, that war without end is the
answer.
See: http://tinylink.com/?Wpo1rP1Qme
Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
| | | |
